Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction

Abstract

The Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) is a widely recognized psychometric assessment tool developed to map, evaluate, and analyze interpersonal relationships between educators and students within classroom learning environments. Grounded conceptually in Timothy Leary’s (1957) interpersonal circumplex model and adapted to educational contexts by Theo Wubbels, Hans Créton, and Jack Levy, the QTI operationalizes teacher communication along two primary orthogonal axes: Influence (Dominance–Submission) and Proximity (Cooperation–Opposition). The standard American version of the instrument comprises 64 items configured into eight distinct behavioral sectors (octants): Leadership (DC), Helpful/Friendly (CD), Understanding (CS), Student Responsibility/Freedom (SC), Uncertain (SO), Dissatisfied (OS), Admonishing (OD), and Strict (DO). Administered via a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 0 (Never) to 4 (Always), the QTI captures both aggregated student perceptions and teacher self-perceptions, providing dual perspectives on instructional climate. Psychometric evaluations across diverse educational systems demonstrate high internal consistency reliability, with class-level Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .86 to .96 across subscales. Construct validity is supported by circumplex structural analyses, confirmatory factor analyses, and robust discriminant capacity across distinct classrooms. The QTI serves as a vital diagnostic and predictive instrument in educational research, teacher professional development, preservice clinical supervision, and classroom environment assessment, reliably correlating with student cognitive achievement, academic engagement, and affective motivation.

Keywords

Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction, QTI, interpersonal teacher behavior, Leary circumplex model, classroom environment, teacher-student relationship, classroom climate, dominance-submission, cooperation-opposition, psychometric evaluation

Authors

The Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction was originally conceptualized and developed in the Netherlands by educational researchers at Utrecht University, notably Theo Wubbels, Hans A. Créton, and Herman P. Hooymayers, beginning in the early 1980s. The adaptation and cross-cultural validation of the American English version was spearheaded through a collaboration between Theo Wubbels and Jack Levy (George Mason University), culminating in their seminal 1991 cross-national comparative investigation. Subsequent cross-cultural adaptations and extensions have involved international researchers including Darrell L. Fisher and Barry J. Fraser at Curtin University, Australia.

• Theo Wubbels, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Educational Sciences, Department of Education, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Specialization: Interpersonal relationships in education, learning environments, and teacher development.
• Jack Levy, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Multicultural Education, Graduate School of Education, College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, United States. Specialization: Interpersonal classroom dynamics, cross-cultural teacher evaluation, and bilingual education.
• Hans A. Créton, Ph.D. (Founding Co-developer) — Utrecht University, The Netherlands. Focus: Systems communication theory and classroom interactional dynamics.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction is to systematically measure, quantify, and interpret interpersonal communication and behavioral patterns exhibited by teachers during classroom instruction. Interpersonal dynamics constitute a fundamental pillar of the psycho-educational ecosystem; instructional efficacy depends heavily on the psychosocial climate established between educators and learners. The QTI addresses the critical need for an objective, psychometrically sound instrument capable of measuring how instructional behaviors are perceived by students as a collective social group, as well as how educators appraise their own relational conduct.

In instructional and clinical supervision contexts, the QTI is employed extensively in both preservice teacher training and inservice professional development. Novice teachers often experience marked discrepancies between their intended interpersonal style and the empirical reality of their classroom demeanor. By administering the QTI simultaneously as a self-report instrument (assessing the teacher’s actual or ideal interpersonal behavior) and as a student-report questionnaire (aggregating the perceptions of the entire class), educational mentors can generate concrete diagnostic discrepancy profiles. These comparative profiles identify specific relational blind spots—such as unintended admonishing behavior, excessive hesitation/uncertainty, or an underutilization of student autonomy—thereby providing targeted benchmarks for professional growth, behavioral self-regulation, and pedagogical counseling.

In academic research, the QTI functions as a powerful independent, mediating, or moderating variable within studies investigating classroom psychosocial ecology, student engagement, school belonging, and academic achievement. Decades of educational research demonstrate that student perceptions of teacher interpersonal behavior account for substantial variance in student cognitive outcomes, subject-matter interest, academic self-efficacy, and moral development. Furthermore, the instrument facilitates large-scale cross-cultural comparisons of pedagogical styles, allowing researchers to explore how cultural values (e.g., individualism vs. collectivism, power distance) shape classroom interaction norms across different nations.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by the QTI is interpersonal teacher behavior, conceptualized as continuous, reciprocal communicative acts that define the relational meaning of the interaction between teacher and pupils. In accordance with general systems theory and interpersonal communication psychology, communicative events transmit both content (the curriculum or cognitive information) and relationship (how the message is to be taken, defining the power dynamics and emotional affiliation). The QTI focuses explicitly on this relational dimension, operationalized via eight distinct yet interconnected behavioral sectors arranged in a continuous circumplex space:

1. Leadership (DC)

This sector represents high Dominance combined with moderate Cooperation. It characterizes an educator who maintains active command of the learning environment, organizes classroom procedures efficiently, commands student attention, communicates instructional goals clearly, and demonstrates intellectual enthusiasm. Example behaviors include explaining materials systematically, projecting confidence, and structuring tasks so that learners know precisely what is expected of them.

2. Helpful/Friendly (CD)

Reflecting high Cooperation blended with moderate Dominance, this construct captures warmth, collegiality, empathy, and personal consideration. A teacher high in helpful/friendly behavior displays genuine interest in students as individuals, demonstrates approachable humor, exhibits willingness to assist struggling students, and cultivates an atmosphere of mutual trust and psychological safety.

3. Understanding (CS)

Positioned in the cooperative-submissive quadrant, this sector entails high Cooperation with an openness to student agency and perspective-taking. It embodies attentive listening, patience, empathy, tolerance, and responsiveness. An understanding teacher acknowledges student difficulties without immediate censure, accommodates student input regarding assignments, and creates an environment where students feel heard, respected, and validated.

4. Student Responsibility/Freedom (SC)

Characterized by moderate Submission and moderate Cooperation, this dimension denotes pedagogical leniency, autonomy support, and learner empowerment. Educators exhibiting this behavior grant students substantial latitude in determining classroom procedures, selecting projects, negotiating deadlines, and directing their own learning trajectories. At its highest levels, it may reflect instructional delegation or a student-centered constructivist learning arrangement.

5. Uncertain (SO)

This construct is defined by high Submission combined with moderate Opposition. It reflects hesitance, self-doubt, timidity, and a general inability to assert classroom authority or establish consistent boundaries. An uncertain teacher appears indecisive, struggles to maintain instructional momentum, allows students to dominate proceedings, and reacts passivity or anxiety when behavioral disruptions occur.

6. Dissatisfied (OS)

Representing moderate Submission combined with high Opposition, this sector captures passive-aggressive dissatisfaction, suspicion, skepticism, and negative expectation. Dissatisfied teachers communicate an implicit belief that students are untrustworthy, unmotivated, or intellectually incapable. Such instructors tend to exhibit persistent unhappiness, express disappointment, scrutinize the class for infractions, and project an aura of resentment.

7. Admonishing (OD)

Characterized by high Opposition blended with moderate Dominance, this construct operationalizes overt hostility, punitive discipline, emotional volatility, and abrasive management. An admonishing teacher becomes angry unexpectedly, relies on severe punishments, uses sarcasm or public embarrassment to enforce compliance, and maintains an adversarial, tense classroom environment.

8. Strict (DO)

Located in the quadrant characterized by high Dominance and moderate Opposition, this dimension reflects rigorous rule enforcement, exacting standards, instructional inflexibility, and demand for absolute student silence. A strict teacher maintains tight control over physical movement and vocalization, sets demanding evaluation criteria, and requires explicit permission for any deviation from established norms.

Theoretical Framework

The foundational theoretical architecture of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction rests upon the integration of two major psychological frameworks: Timothy Leary’s (1957) Interpersonal Circumplex Model and Systems Communication Theory as formulated by Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin Bavelas, and Don D. Jackson (1967).

The Interpersonal Circumplex

In clinical psychology, Leary proposed that all interpersonal interactions can be mapped across a two-dimensional geometric space defined by two orthogonal, continuous axes:

• Dominance–Submission (frequently labeled Influence or the Agency dimension), running vertically from total control/dominance to submission/submissiveness.
• Cooperation–Opposition (frequently labeled Proximity or the Communion dimension), running horizontally from extreme affiliation, warmth, and solidarity to hostility, rejection, and cold opposition.

By crossing these axes, a circular continuum (circumplex) is created. Wubbels and colleagues adapted this paradigm specifically to instructional settings, defining the vertical axis as Influence (Dominance [D] vs. Submission [S]) and the horizontal axis as Proximity (Cooperation [C] vs. Opposition [O]). The eight behavioral sectors of the QTI represent circular wedges (octants) positioned around this coordinate system:

Under circumplex theory, adjacent sectors (such as Leadership and Helpful/Friendly) correlate strongly and positively, orthogonal sectors (such as Leadership and Student Freedom) demonstrate near-zero correlations, and diametrically opposed sectors (such as Leadership and Uncertain, or Helpful/Friendly and Dissatisfied) exhibit strong negative correlations.

Systems Theory and Communication Axioms

The QTI also draws directly from Palo Alto systems communication theory. Watzlawick et al. posited that within an ongoing social system, individuals cannot not communicate. Every communication possesses a ‘content’ (report) aspect and a ‘relationship’ (command) aspect, with the latter classifying the former. In classrooms, while teaching mathematics, literature, or science represents the content aspect, the ongoing nonverbal gestures, vocal tone, proximity, and gaze represent the relationship aspect. Over time, these relational messages crystallize into enduring interactive patterns that govern classroom psychosocial climate. The QTI was engineered precisely to assess these stable relational patterns.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction has been thoroughly investigated across cross-national, multicultural, and multi-level educational samples.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity is evidenced primarily by verifying that the eight scales conform to a circumplex structure in two-dimensional space. In the foundational validation of the 64-item American QTI conducted by Wubbels and Levy (1991)—involving 1,606 students from 66 classes and 31 secondary school educators—bivariate correlations among the subscales adhered strictly to circumplex expectations. Adjacent subscales exhibited strong positive correlations (e.g., Leadership with Helpful/Friendly, r ≈ .70 to .80), while opposing subscales exhibited significant negative correlations (e.g., Leadership with Uncertain, r ≈ -.60 to -.75; Helpful/Friendly with Dissatisfied, r ≈ -.70 to -.85). Multidimensional scaling (MDS) and circumplex modeling routinely confirm an optimal two-dimensional solution that mirrors Leary’s conceptual coordinate axes.

Discriminant and Class-Level Validity

A crucial validity requirement for learning environment assessments is their capacity to discriminate reliably between different classrooms. Because the primary unit of statistical analysis is typically the classroom mean rather than individual student variance, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) are conducted with class membership as the independent variable. In Wubbels and Levy’s (1991) investigation, the proportion of variance explained by class membership (eta-squared, η²) was statistically significant (p < .001) across all eight scales, ranging from .30 to .55. This demonstrates that the QTI measures collective classroom-level interpersonal dynamics rather than idiosyncratic individual student biases.

Predictive and Convergent Validity

Extensive educational research has established the predictive utility of the QTI regarding student cognitive and affective outcomes. Multiple regression and hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) studies indicate that high scores on the cooperative sectors (Leadership, Helpful/Friendly, Understanding) correlate positively with student subject-matter interest, perceived utility of the course, intrinsic motivation, and standardized academic achievement scores (Poll, 2010; Wahome, 2003). Conversely, elevated scores on Dissatisfied, Admonishing, and Uncertain sectors predict student disengagement, instructional anxiety, classroom absenteeism, and behavioral infractions.

Reliability

The reliability of the QTI has been evaluated at both the individual student level and the aggregated class level. Because individual perceptions within a class are aggregated to yield a reliable measure of the shared learning environment, class-level internal consistency is typically higher than individual-level reliability.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In Wubbels and Levy’s (1991) benchmark study with 1,606 secondary students across 66 classes, the class-level Cronbach’s alpha coefficients demonstrated exceptional internal consistency:

• Leadership: α = .94
• Helpful/Friendly: α = .95
• Understanding: α = .94
• Student Responsibility/Freedom: α = .86
• Uncertain: α = .96
• Dissatisfied: α = .90
• Admonishing: α = .92
• Strict: α = .95

At the individual student level, alpha coefficients remain robust, generally falling between .72 and .89 across the eight sectors. When completed by teachers as a self-evaluation instrument, Cronbach’s alpha values typically range between .70 and .84, demonstrating adequate reliability despite the smaller sample size and singular vantage point of individual educators.

Test-Retest Stability

Longitudinal investigations tracking classroom interaction across an academic year indicate that teacher-student interpersonal patterns stabilize rapidly within the first 6 to 8 weeks of the school term. Test-retest reliability coefficients evaluated across mid-semester intervals (8 to 12 weeks) consistently range from .68 to .82 at the class level, indicating that the QTI captures stable, enduring interactional styles rather than transient day-to-day fluctuations in instructional mood.

Factor Analysis

The underlying dimensionality of the 64-item American QTI has been repeatedly examined through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to verify alignment with the theoretical two-factor interpersonal circumplex.

Exploratory Factor Structure

In the original factor analyses conducted by Wubbels and Levy (1991), principal components analysis followed by Varimax orthogonal rotation consistently yielded two dominant factors that accounted for the major proportion of total common variance:

• Factor 1: Influence (Dominance–Submission [DS]) — Marked by strong positive loadings from items within the Strict and Leadership octants and strong negative loadings from items within the Uncertain and Student Responsibility/Freedom octants.
• Factor 2: Proximity (Cooperation–Opposition [CO]) — Marked by high positive loadings from Helpful/Friendly, Understanding, and Leadership octants and substantial negative loadings from Dissatisfied, Admonishing, and Strict items.

Item Distribution across Subscales

The 64 retained items are balanced across the eight interpersonal sectors as follows:

• Leadership: 7 items (Items 3, 31, 36, 40, 45, 52, 62)
• Helpful/Friendly: 8 items (Items 5, 15, 29, 35, 37, 47, 50, 60)
• Understanding: 8 items (Items 4, 6, 11, 13, 17, 18, 32, 56)
• Student Responsibility/Freedom: 8 items (Items 8, 21, 25, 27, 33, 48, 49, 64)
• Uncertain: 7 items (Items 23, 34, 39, 42, 44, 46, 55)
• Dissatisfied: 9 items (Items 7, 10, 12, 19, 26, 28, 30, 54, 58)
• Admonishing: 8 items (Items 16, 24, 38, 41, 43, 51, 59, 63)
• Strict: 9 items (Items 1, 2, 9, 14, 20, 22, 53, 57, 61)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Circumplex Modeling

Structural equation modeling (SEM) and circular stochastic modeling (e.g., Browne’s circular covariance structure analysis) applied to the QTI demonstrate acceptable to good model fit indices (CFI > .90, TLI > .90, RMSEA < .06) when specifying the constrained circumplex structure. These analyses support the assertion that the eight scales are not independent constructs, but rather systematic segments along a continuous circular coordinate system.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Tool Name: Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) – American 64-Item Version
• Instrument Type: Psychometric survey / Classroom environment rating inventory
• Target Population: Secondary school students (Grades 7–12), post-secondary/undergraduate students, and classroom educators
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized online survey
• Administration Time: Approximately 15 to 25 minutes
• Total Number of Items: 64 items
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type scale with anchor ratings:
  • 0 = A (never)
  • 1 = B
  • 2 = C
  • 3 = D
  • 4 = E (always)
• Subscale Item Composition:
  • Leadership: Items 3, 31, 36, 40, 45, 52, 62 (7 items)
  • Helpful/Friendly: Items 5, 15, 29, 35, 37, 47, 50, 60 (8 items)
  • Understanding: Items 4, 6, 11, 13, 17, 18, 32, 56 (8 items)
  • Student Responsibility/Freedom: Items 8, 21, 25, 27, 33, 48, 49, 64 (8 items)
  • Uncertain: Items 23, 34, 39, 42, 44, 46, 55 (7 items)
  • Dissatisfied: Items 7, 10, 12, 19, 26, 28, 30, 54, 58 (9 items)
  • Admonishing: Items 16, 24, 38, 41, 43, 51, 59, 63 (8 items)
  • Strict: Items 1, 2, 9, 14, 20, 22, 53, 57, 61 (9 items)
• Scoring and Profiling: Item scores within each subscale are summed (or averaged) to produce an overall octant profile. In addition, sector scores can be transformed via trigonometric weighting equations into dimensional coordinates representing overall Influence (DS) and Proximity (CO) scores:

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction was originally created in Dutch in 1985 (the 77-item Vragenlijst voor Interactief Gedrag [VIG]) by Theo Wubbels, Hans Créton, and Herman Hooymayers at Utrecht University. The American 64-item adaptation was developed and validated in 1991 by Theo Wubbels and Jack Levy. The instrument is generally considered an academic research tool and is accessible free of charge for non-commercial educational research, doctoral dissertations, and institutional teacher-training programs. Researchers intending to employ the instrument are advised to obtain formal academic permission and consult the foundational manuals or correspond directly with the copyright holders (Theo Wubbels, Utrecht University) to ensure proper scoring calibration and circumplex calculation protocols.

References

• DiCanio-Whiton, G. (2004). Individualistic and collectivistic perceptions of teacher communication styles (Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
• Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: A functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. Ronald Press.
• Poitras, E. M. (2002). Do female teachers with a self-reported history of childhood sexual abuse differ from non-abused female teachers in their professional self-perceptions? (Doctoral dissertation, Boston College). Boston College Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Archive.
• Poll, W. (2010). A study of student-teacher interactions as a predictor for student academic achievement and success (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
• Wahome, T. J. (2003). Who cares? Student perceptions of factors that promote resiliency in high school (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
• Watzlawick, P., Beavin Bavelas, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2005). Two decades of research on teacher–student relationships in class. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(1–2), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.03.003
• Wubbels, T., Créton, H. A., & Hooymayers, H. P. (1985). Discipline problems of beginning teachers, interactional problems in classrooms studied from a systems approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
• Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (1991). A comparison of interpersonal behavior of Dutch and American teachers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(91)90070-W
• Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (Eds.). (1993). Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal relationships in education. Falmer Press.

Items of the Scale